The hand wringing over Shanahan's success or alleged lack of success since Elway is ridiculous. I'd like to see a list of bad head coaches without a very good quarterback who could go 11-5, 8-8, 9-7, 10-6, 10-6, and 13-3, and 9-7 in a seven year stretch. Please provide such a list, Ray.

And while you're at it, please explain how that counts as "perpetual mediocrity." I'm all ears.

Or are we supposed to believe he "didn't win anything" just because he didn't win a Super Bowl? I guess getting to the playoffs or conference championship isn't good enough? You probably think the Ravens have been a mediocre team these past 10 years, too, I suppose.

I know context won't make a dent in the skull of this boneheaded argument, and I know it won't be going away any time soon. But I'll never cease to be amazed that otherwise intelligent fans can buy this garbage.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

Shanahan is a good coach. The only knock on him by a few players was that they didn't always trust him. But, I think his record speaks for itself. Aside from the Great Joe Gibbs, there are not many Championship coaches who won multilple rings without a franchise QB. The Elway knock is ridiculous. Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

The Hogster wrote:Shanahan is a good coach. The only knock on him by a few players was that they didn't always trust him. But, I think his record speaks for itself. Aside from the Great Joe Gibbs, there are not many Championship coaches who won multilple rings without a franchise QB. The Elway knock is ridiculous. Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

I remember Hogster. I also remember wining 3 super bowls with 3 different QBs.... I am elated to have Robert. I have been a fan since 1974 but remember 1972 barely. QB is important today but not yesterday. Look at the 9ners today.

Irn-Bru wrote:The hand wringing over Shanahan's success or alleged lack of success since Elway is ridiculous. I'd like to see a list of bad head coaches without a very good quarterback who could go 11-5, 8-8, 9-7, 10-6, 10-6, and 13-3, and 9-7 in a seven year stretch. Please provide such a list, Ray.

Really? So, you're saying that after Elway, Cutler, Plummer, and Griese, who, by the way, all three made the pro bowl as Broncos QBs were just not good? Methinks you're being very picky about what constitutes a good QB, and I think the pro bowl qualifies as good.

So, the better question would be for you to give me a list of great coaches with a worse record, while having 3 different QB's make the pro bowl.

Irn-Bru wrote:And while you're at it, please explain how that counts as "perpetual mediocrity." I'm all ears.

Or are we supposed to believe he "didn't win anything" just because he didn't win a Super Bowl? I guess getting to the playoffs or conference championship isn't good enough? You probably think the Ravens have been a mediocre team these past 10 years, too, I suppose.

Well, what did he win? I'll tell you ... he won 1 playoff game in 12 years after Elway. ONE. He won his division TWICE in 12 years. After Elway, it took him 7 years before wining his division again. 7 years!!!

You take away Elway and the two Super Bowls, and what does Shanahan really have to hang a hat on? Not very much.

(By the way ... Andy Reid, in the same time period won 7 division titles, and won 10 playoff games with the same QB Mike benched in favor of Rex Grossman. Just sayin'

Irn-Bru wrote:I know context won't make a dent in the skull of this boneheaded argument, and I know it won't be going away any time soon. But I'll never cease to be amazed that otherwise intelligent fans can buy this garbage.

Well you ain't gonna make much of a dent with a pillow full of chicken feathers as a hammer.

The Hogster wrote:Shanahan is a good coach. The only knock on him by a few players was that they didn't always trust him. But, I think his record speaks for itself. Aside from the Great Joe Gibbs, there are not many Championship coaches who won multilple rings without a franchise QB. The Elway knock is ridiculous. Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

Now this is a new Orwellian twist on history ... now you want to make the insinuation that it was Shanahan who made Elway successful and not the other way round ? Jesus. It's getting deep in here.

Aside from the fact that after Elway retired, the following year, Shanahan's Broncos went 6-10 ... and aside from the fact that it would take 7 years before he won another division title or a playoff game .... none of which I find overly remarkable, the NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda place ... and lately ... as in the last 5 seasons .... 3 with Denver and the past 2 with Washington .... Shanny is 10 games below 500, which unfortunately all occurred here (he was 500 during his final 3 seasons in Denver). So he's been riding a reputation that is very old now.

That's not great ... it's not good ... and it isn't even mediocre ... it's actually horrible. To put things into perspective, the Redskins would have to win the next 10 straight games just for Shanny to reach 500 in his three seasons here ... which would match his 500 record with Denver over his last three seasons there. Do you think we're going to finish 13-3?

Now I'm not saying that Shanahan can't win here ... I'm saying that with RG3, if he doesn't win, he'll have run out of excuses, and he won't be coasting much longer on that old reputation.

As I suspected. No list of coaches, and no explanation of how that record could be seen as mediocre.

RayNAustin wrote:Really? So, you're saying that after Elway, Cutler, Plummer, and Griese, who, by the way, all three made the pro bowl as Broncos QBs were just not good?

They were good. They were not very good. Plummer in particular, with whom Shanahan had the most time, was only decent and only had one Pro Bowl worthy season — and even then only made it as part of a ridiculously deep bench of alternates (one-quarter of the conference's quarterbacks were ahead of him).

I was careful with my words. These players were solid starters, good, but he never had a very good QB, and in this league it takes a very good QB to win consistently unless your name is Joe Gibbs or one of a handful of other legendary coaches.

Well, what did he win? I'll tell you ... he won 1 playoff game in 12 years after Elway. ONE. He won his division TWICE in 12 years. After Elway, it took him 7 years before wining his division again. 7 years!!!

Exclamation points may make you sound more hysterical, but they do not bolster your argument. The record I quoted above is not something you will see a mediocre coach produce. Belichick couldn't have won much more with the QBs Shanahan had.

You take away Elway and the two Super Bowls, and what does Shanahan really have to hang a hat on? Not very much.

The old "if you take away . . ." argument. Not just the most overused, but the most badly used in all football discussions.

(By the way ... Andy Reid, in the same time period won 7 division titles, and won 10 playoff games with the same QB Mike benched in favor of Rex Grossman.

Definitely not the same QB.

And did you just say McNabb was not a very good quarterback in his time at Philly? I dislike the guy as much as anyone, but come on, let's be real.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

Don't believe what your eyes tell you, Redskins fans. It might look like a 76% winning record, but in fact that's actually a "horrible" record as coach. Putrid. Unacceptable. And clear evidence that Shanahan without Elway couldn't win "anything."

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

The Hogster wrote:Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

Ouch, sorry Ray, but you're having a bad hair day. Elway carried Shannahan, too funny. I do believe you're a Redskin fan, but it's odd how you need to have a Redskin you hate the living daylights out of at any given moment. Apparently JC did have broad shoulders, your hatred for him had to be carried by ... two ... guys named "Shannahan"

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Irn-Bru wrote:Or are we supposed to believe he "didn't win anything" just because he didn't win a Super Bowl? I guess getting to the playoffs or conference championship isn't good enough? You probably think the Ravens have been a mediocre team these past 10 years, too, I suppose.

In the 12 seasons that Shanahan has coached since his last Super Bowl win, his team won his division ONCE. That's one time in 12 seasons. In that span he's made it to one conference championship and his playoff record is 1-4. So one division win and one playoff win in 12 seasons.

As for the quarterbacks that you mentioned in another post and not being good enough...Plummer, Griese, Cutler. Who was responsible for drafting or trading for them?

The Hogster wrote:Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

Ouch, sorry Ray, but you're having a bad hair day. Elway carried Shannahan, too funny. I do believe you're a Redskin fan, but it's odd how you need to have a Redskin you hate the living daylights out of at any given moment. Apparently JC did have broad shoulders, your hatred for him had to be carried by ... two ... guys named "Shannahan"

If you think it was the other way around, that Shanahan carried Elway to the super bowl, and to the party afterward, that doesn't surprise me a bit. I expect that from you. In fact, when we agree on something ... I immediately do a discount double check

And I suppose Dan Reeves carried Elway to the other three Super Bowls too.

So yeah, I get it ... Shanahan 2 SBs Elway 5 SBs .... must have been Shanahan's brilliance. If nothing else, you are consistent.

RayNAustin wrote:If you think it was the other way around, that Shanahan carried Elway to the super bowl, and to the party afterward, that doesn't surprise me a bit

You think one had to carry the other, I have to pick, that doesn't surprise me a bit. Actually the NFL is a team game, Ray, in an ultra competitive environment. It takes a whole team to win, players and coaches. You know that and you write some good points until we get to the people you hate, and then it's tinfoil time.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Don't believe what your eyes tell you, Redskins fans. It might look like a 76% winning record, but in fact that's actually a "horrible" record as coach. Putrid. Unacceptable. And clear evidence that Shanahan without Elway couldn't win "anything."

I'd really like to say that I find no pleasure in this, but that would be less than honest, since you have really gone out of your way to earn this symbolic foot that is about to be metaphorically lodged in your whimsical rear end.

So without further ado, the bad news is, Irn-Bru, my dog counts her greenies better than you count football games. So you prolly should stop laughing now, and find some one to help you with this 4th grade math assignment I'm fixing to give you .... and maybe a good chef skilled in the preparation of crow, because you have Irned a substantial portion.

I'll walk you through this, and I'll try to type slowly ... and I hope your fan club follows along, (Kazoo & Friends) because apparently this problem affects them as much as it does you ... so we can make this a class ...

You just listed 10 seasons above. At 16 games per season, that is how many games? The correct answer is 160. Very good.

Now, let's check your 76% winning figure ... yes ... by multiplying .76 X 160 Kay? What did you come up with? I came up with 121.6 wins. Now go to your nice little list, and count how many games Mikey ACTUALLY won without Elway? By my count, he won 91 games. See a slight problem here? Like 30 missing wins? Think that might slightly alter the results a bit?

Frankly, this is math you should be able to do in your head, without having to remove shoes and stuff ... in rough estimate fashion ... half of 160 = 80 (50%) ... and half of 80 would be 40 (25%). Add 80+40=120 ... that would be 75% .... 1% of 160 would be 1.6. Add all of that up and you get 121.6. This was the big clue that your 76% winning percentage was bogus at face value .... but if you're ever in Austin, ring me up and we'll keep a seat at the poker table warm for you, but we'll count the cash, if you don't mind.

So what was Mikey's actual winning percentage? Well, I'm going to let you figure that out on your own, cuz you'll never learn if I just give you the answer ....

Hint: It starts with a frigging FIVE ... and is less than 60%

Now, the bonus question is to take Mikey's Broncos post Elway winning percentage and add to that the 2 1/2 seasons in Washington ... and the total for the last 12 years is BELOW 50%

And the actual correct answer equates to an average 7-9 record for the past 12 seasons (Broncos & Redskins) and that is absolutely MEDIOCRE by NFL standards and gets coaches fired all of the time ... just like it did with Mikey in Denver. That was your 2nd clue .... that no coaches get fired for going 13-3 and 12-4 (75%) every year. The 3rd clue .... that Mikey only achieved that 76% ONCE in those 10 years, and those 7-9, 6-10 and 8-8 records were not going to help that number much.

Mikey's .358 winning record in the Burgundy & Gold is, on the other hand, HORRIBLE, which was what I actually said... but you should have already realized this by the 14-25 record, without me having to tell you. Perhaps you've been too busy standing on your own member, which may explain all the confusion with percentages. It's hard to think clearly like that.